Exploring Unmet Needs in Prostate Cancer Care: A Cross-sectional Descriptive Study.

Background and objective: Prostate cancer, the most common cancer among men worldwide, has significant impact on quality of life. Supportive care needs for those affected by prostate cancer are not well understood. This study aims to describe patient-reported unmet needs and explore supportive care priorities of men treated for prostate cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to all men who had accessed prostate cancer services (including surgical, radiation, and medical oncology treatment modalities) at a tertiary hospital. The survey included qualitative questions exploring patient experience and a validated patient-reported outcome measure (Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form 34). Clinical information was collected. Analyses included, descriptive statistics, multivariate logistic regression models and qualitative analyses using a framework method. Key findings and limitations: A total of 162 participants provided survey data. Domains about information, self-management, and sexual function were the highest ranked items with unmet needs. A qualitative analysis also identified "relationships", "information", and "the value of hindsight" constructs. Participants who identified three or more unmet needs expressed treatment regret (odds ratio 5.92, 1.98-22.23, p = 0.01). Conclusions and clinical implications: Understanding the unmet needs of patients may better inform supportive care interventions that address what is important to patients. Importantly, participants valued relationships. There may be opportunities to better meet the needs of patients by improving access to information and self-management resources, particularly around sexuality. Further research is warranted. Patient summary: Prostate cancer and its treatment impacts are not well understood. Prioritisation of relationships and improving access to information and self-management resources are important. Further attention to prostate cancer supportive care in clinical practice is needed.

Safety and efficacy of midline catheters versus peripheral intravenous catheters: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite pervasive need for peripheral intravenous catheters, insertion is often difficult, and approximately two thirds fail prematurely. Midline catheters are an alternative long peripheral catheter, inserted in the upper arm, ideal for patients with difficult access. AIM: The aim of this study is to test feasibility of the protocol and compare the efficacy and safety of midline catheters to peripheral intravenous catheters. DESIGN: A parallel-group, pilot randomized controlled trial of adult medical/surgical hospitalized patients, from a single Australian referral hospital. METHODS: Participants with difficult vascular access (≤2 palpable veins) and/or anticipated ≥5 days of peripherally compatible intravenous therapy were recruited between May 2019 and March 2020. Participants were randomized to (1) peripheral intravenous catheter or (2) midline catheter. Primary feasibility outcome measured eligibility, recruitment, protocol adherence, retention and attrition. Primary clinical outcomes measured device insertion failure and post-insertion failure. RESULTS: In total, n = 143 participants (71 peripheral intravenous catheters and 72 midline catheters) were recruited; n = 139 were analysed. Most feasibility criteria were met. Peripheral intravenous catheters had shorter functional dwell time, with higher incidence of post-insertion failure compared to midline catheters. CONCLUSION: Midline catheters appear to be superior for patients with difficult vascular access or receiving prolonged intravenous therapy; a large, multi-centre trial to confirm findings is feasible.

Innovation in clinical learning for the acute hospital environment: nursing grand rounds.

The literature reports that workload factors affect nurses' ability to fully engage in continuing professional development. Hence the work environment in acute care calls for innovative approaches to achieve continuous development of nursing practice and work satisfaction. This study employs a one group pre-test post-test design to test the effectiveness of nursing grand rounds on nursing worklife satisfaction and work environment in an acute surgical ward. The effect of nursing grand rounds was measured using the Nursing Worklife Satisfaction Scale and the Practice Environment Scale. There was no change between pre- and post-test on these measures but trends were evident in some component scores. Statistical results were inconclusive but observational data indicated that nursing grand rounds was found to be feasible, well attended with tested processes for implementation in an acute care environment.

Measuring the effect of patient comfort rounds on practice environment and patient satisfaction: a pilot study.

Hourly rounding in the acute hospital setting has been proposed as an intervention to increase patient satisfaction and safety, and improve the nursing practice environment, but the innovation has not been adequately tested. A quasi-experimental pretest post-test non-randomized parallel group trial design was used to test the effect of hourly patient comfort rounds on patient satisfaction and nursing perceptions of the practice environment, and to evaluate research processes and instruments for a proposed larger study. A Patient Satisfaction Survey instrument was developed and used in conjunction with the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index. Results on patient satisfaction showed no significant changes. Significant changes were found for three of the five practice environment subscales. Consistent with the aim of a pilot study, this research has provided important information related to design, instruments and process that will inform a larger sufficiently powered study.

Does evening removal of urinary catheters shorten hospital stay among general hospital patients? A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Literature indicates that removing urinary catheters at midnight facilitates earlier discharge among urology patients, but the effect of evening removal on the general patient population is unknown. The objective of this study was to investigate whether removing a urinary catheter at 22.00 hours compared to 06.00 hours among a general hospital population would lead to earlier hospital discharge. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: The study was conducted in a large tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Two hundred and ten general surgical and medical patients who had an indwelling catheter as part of their routine care were included. RESULTS: Length of hospital stay after catheter removal was not significantly affected by the timing of its removal among general hospital patients: mean hours morning 186.1; mean evening 209.3, (P = .309). In a cohort of surgical patients, the hospital stay was shorter in the evening removal group (mean hours morning 186.1; mean evening 209.3), but this result was not statistically significant (P = .127). Patients in the evening group were more likely to have a longer time period between catheter removal and the first postcatheter void, mean hours morning, 3.76 vs evening, 4.89 (t = -2.59, CI - 1.99 to -0.27). Timing of removal of the urinary catheter had no effect on the volume of the first void, mean volume morning, 214.7 mL vs evening, 221.4 mL. Twenty-five (12.1%) patients were recatheterized, but the rate of recatheterization between groups was similar. There were no differences in postdischarge problems between groups. CONCLUSION: Among general hospital patients, removing an indwelling urinary catheter at 22:00 hours does not shorten the length of stay and is effective in increasing the time to first void.